Test Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals
draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-04

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (rmcat WG)
Last updated 2016-11-24 (latest revision 2016-10-26)
Replaces draft-sarker-rmcat-eval-test
Stream IETF
Intended RFC status Informational
Formats plain text xml pdf html bibtex
Stream WG state WG Document Aug 2013
Document shepherd No shepherd assigned
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
Network Working Group                                          Z. Sarker
Internet-Draft                                               Ericsson AB
Intended status: Informational                                  V. Singh
Expires: April 29, 2017                                     callstats.io
                                                                  X. Zhu
                                                              M. Ramalho
                                                           Cisco Systems
                                                        October 26, 2016

               Test Cases for Evaluating RMCAT Proposals
                     draft-ietf-rmcat-eval-test-04

Abstract

   The Real-time Transport Protocol (RTP) is used to transmit media in
   multimedia telephony applications, these applications are typically
   required to implement congestion control.  This document describes
   the test cases to be used in the performance evaluation of such
   congestion control algorithms.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on April 29, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2016 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect

Sarker, et al.           Expires April 29, 2017                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft          Test Scenarios for RMCAT            October 2016

   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   3.  Structure of Test cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Recommended Evaluation Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     4.1.  Evaluation metrics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.2.  Path characteristics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     4.3.  Media source  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   5.  Basic Test Cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     5.1.  Variable Available Capacity with a Single Flow  . . . . .  10
     5.2.  Variable Available Capacity with Multiple Flows . . . . .  13
     5.3.  Congested Feedback Link with Bi-directional Media Flows .  14
     5.4.  Competing Media Flows with same Congestion Control
           Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     5.5.  Round Trip Time Fairness  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     5.6.  Media Flow Competing with a Long TCP Flow . . . . . . . .  21
     5.7.  Media Flow Competing with Short TCP Flows . . . . . . . .  23
     5.8.  Media Pause and Resume  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
   6.  Other potential test cases  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     6.1.  Media Flows with Priority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
     6.2.  Explicit Congestion Notification Usage  . . . . . . . . .  27
     6.3.  Multiple Bottlenecks  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
   7.  Wireless Access Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   8.  Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  29
   10. Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
   11. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     11.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  30
     11.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  31

1.  Introduction

   This memo describes a set of test cases for evaluating congestion
   control algorithm proposals for real-time interactive media.  It is
Show full document text